TexasCHLforum.com

A couple of points: When Jefferson penned the Declaration, the American colonists were not 100% behind the rebels. A significant number of colonists remained loyal to the British crown and were not behind the revolution. In today's terms, advocates of secession would have to deal with those in their own state that do not agree with secession. Are the non-secessionists to be dragged into rebellion against their wills? Will they be relocated to a northeastern or Pacific coast state?
Second, a good argument can be made that the war between the states (1861-1865) was fought, at least in part, in an effort by Lincoln to preserve the Union. Did the resolution of that war, in favor of the northern states and the Federal government, resolve the question of whether the Federal government should stand idly by and let individual states secede? Would secession be worth the nightmare of having Federal troops invade Austin to spank the secessionists?
In the end, perhaps a better bet is to stay put in the good old USA, and work united to replace the out of control Federal government with one true to the Constitution.

In the end, perhaps a better bet is to stay put in the good old USA, and work united to replace the out of control Federal government with one true to the Constitution.

Beiruty wrote:

bauer wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:All of these silly petitions will certainly delay any POTUS response to/defense of the Benghazi coverup....if nothing else.

It still amazes me how Benghazi quickly got tossed to the back burner. Im sorry, but if that situation isn't a coverup I'm not really sure what is. Its awfully convient that there is always something new making headlines thus delaying an official response to what happened to Ambassador Stevens and his minimal security detail.

Failure of Intelligence and Failure of adequate readiness and response.

Thats the kicker though, General Ham of AFRICOM was detained by his second in command because he tried to ignore a "stand down" order from higher ups in DC (POTUS/Joint Chiefs). He was receiving the same real time information the White House was and attempted to spin up a reaction force, based in Italy I believe, that could have been there in 3 hours only to be relieved of his command by General Rodriguez. As for the failure of readiness, thats simply a question Obama needs to answer. Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked for more security and was denied each time. England had removed their Consulate from the area out of concern for the safety of their citizens. Why did this not raise suspicions about the security of the area? The list goes on and on.

Now all this crap about Generals Petraeus and Allen surfaces a week before Petraeus is to testify about Benghazi.... the smoke screen can be seen from a mile away. Yet, the liberal media will do anything and everything to find "breaking headlines" to distract the American people from seeking the truth about Benghazi. In the end, liberals will chalk up Obama's miscues and despicable actions (or lack of action) Sept 11 to it being Bush/Cheney's fault.

bauer wrote:
Now all this crap about Generals Petraeus and Allen surfaces a week before Petraeus is to testify about Benghazi....

... the Secretary of State is on a kangaroo chase out along the billabong.

Hey, you guys that signed that petition.....what country will you be moving to?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh- ... 63282.html

W.H. Petition Calls for Stripping Citizenship and Exile for Anyone Who Signs Petition to Secede

"Mr. President, please sign an executive order such that each American citizen who signed a petition from any state to secede from the USA shall have their citizenship stripped and be peacefully deported," the full petition reads.

VMI77 wrote:Hey, you guys that signed that petition.....what country will you be moving to?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh- ... 63282.html

W.H. Petition Calls for Stripping Citizenship and Exile for Anyone Who Signs Petition to Secede

"Mr. President, please sign an executive order such that each American citizen who signed a petition from any state to secede from the USA shall have their citizenship stripped and be peacefully deported," the full petition reads.

Excellent. A confrontation in the works.

One of my favorite mantras is that there is nothing better than a good butt chewing to start out the day.

Bring it. We all know that the infected pustule will send his orcs or his orc's sons or daughters to do his bidding. He is too much of a coward to do it himself.

Anygunanywhere

atticus wrote:A couple of points: When Jefferson penned the Declaration, the American colonists were not 100% behind the rebels. A significant number of colonists remained loyal to the British crown and were not behind the revolution. In today's terms, advocates of secession would have to deal with those in their own state that do not agree with secession. Are the non-secessionists to be dragged into rebellion against their wills? Will they be relocated to a northeastern or Pacific coast state?

I hope you don't mind me answering your questions with a few of my own. As you say, the founding fathers didn't have 100% support. I have read that approximately 20% of the colonists were loyal to the king across the colonies, with their numbers approaching half the population in some states. Also there were a lot of people who didn't take sides. Do you think the founding fathers were wrong to secede from England?

Were the loyalists and the apathetic dragged into rebellion? History says some of the loyalists took up arms for the king, so it doesn't sound like they were forced to rebel. The bigger question would be if defenders of the constitution would be forced to fight to defend unconstitutional laws and policies?

Were loyalsts forced off their land 225 years ago? Some left voluntarily for sure but were any forced to leave when the rebels won?

recaffeination wrote:Were loyalsts forced off their land 225 years ago? Some left voluntarily for sure but were any forced to leave when the rebels won?

Indeed they were --some anyway.

In areas under rebel control, Loyalists were subject to confiscation of property, and outspoken supporters of the king were threatened with public humiliation such as tarring and feathering, or physical attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_ ... olution%29

now it's 47 out of 50 States

Petitions seeking White House approval to ‘secede’ now come from 47 states
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/13/petit ... 47-states/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only three states that lack secession petitions are Maine, Vermont and Washington.

Recaf, Thanks for the thoughtful response. Nope, the founding fathers were not wrong. Thank goodness. But in 1776, there was no USA, only about 150 years of history as colonists / British citizens, living in America. Now, in 2012, the American people live in a country with over 220 years of independent history. My question is whether secessionists presume to impose their will on fellow Texans who might not wish to secede. Secession (say it happens, for the sake of argument) would entail its own set of problems in commerce and defense, for example. Do modern secessionists wish to impose those risks on the unwilling? And no, I'm not aware of anyone being forcibly removed from the former colonies at the end of the revolutionary war. But I am asking whether secessionists have thought about whether the unwilling should be removed, after secession. Either way, the secessionists will have put their fellow citizens to the very hard decision whether to renounce their US citizenship, or to voluntarily remove themselves back to the new USA. Should we put our fellow citizens in such a position? Especially in light of the history of post civil war America? And if secession were not a peaceful process, but instead led to hostile military opposition from Washington D. C., would secessionists care to be responsible for the damage to the unwilling and their lives and property? It's a lot of responsibility, and bears very careful consideration of alternatives prior to pulling that trigger.

That Daily Caller article stated a good reason why Texas may be the only State with a shot at doing this. Good read.

Page two details how Texas could divide into 5 separate sections instead of seceding and immediately have 10 US Senate Seats! Harry Reid is prolly going NUTS over this!

Oh....he is already NUTS anyway!

Houston Chronicle
Texas secession: Fact and fiction
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11 ... d-fiction/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a point I had forgotten probably not feasible but it would be interesting if we had 10 Senators ...

Fact or fiction: Texas is permitted to divide itself into five states.

FACT.

The 1845 Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas affirms Texas’ right to divide itself into five states if it chooses. Here’s the relevant passage, written in 19th century legalese:

“New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution.”

Texas has never tested the treaty of annexation. But it is possible that ten senators could, at some point, represent the current territory of Texas. How ’bout East Texas, West Texas, Central Texas, South Texas and North Texas?

10 Senators ... I like that better than just two ... 10 out of 100?
10% of the US Senate controlled by Texans ... hmmm

I like it!

RPB wrote:Houston Chronicle
Texas secession: Fact and fiction
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11 ... d-fiction/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a point I had forgotten probably not feasible but it would be interesting if we had 10 Senators ...

Fact or fiction: Texas is permitted to divide itself into five states.

FACT.

The 1845 Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas affirms Texas’ right to divide itself into five states if it chooses. Here’s the relevant passage, written in 19th century legalese:

“New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution.”

Texas has never tested the treaty of annexation. But it is possible that ten senators could, at some point, represent the current territory of Texas. How ’bout East Texas, West Texas, Central Texas, South Texas and North Texas?

10 Senators ... I like that better than just two ... 10 out of 100?
10% of the US Senate controlled by Texans ... hmmm

I would assume that it would amount to an additional 8 (with the two we already have). So it would be 10 out of 108, a bit less than 10%.

I am an advocate for what I call a "soft secession". Conservatism is not dead, in fact, most of this country is made up of red states. I can drive from one side of this country to the other without ever crossing a blue county.

It is time the red states stand up and take control away from the federal government. The first step is to reject Obamacare. The red states need to pull together and reject the mandates and unconstitutional power that the federal government has taken. Reject Obamacare, reject welfare and social mandates that our people don't agree with. Even reject Supreme Court rulings that conflict with our state courts. The Feds would cut off federal funding to the red states, but so be it. Obama only has the power that we as the citizens give him, but that is being forgotten.

I have no desire to tell the liberals how they need to live. If the people in New York and California want to live under the fist of the Federal government then God bless them. I don't believe the people of Texas or Oklahoma or Montana want to live that way. We still have rights and we don't have to bow down to washington. The red states need to stand up and conduction a revolution without bullets by just saying "no" to the Federal Government.